- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Austria · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
Court case W214 2230473-1 – Court Ruling (Austria, 2020)
Privacy enforcement record
This record is classified outside cookie consent. Subject classification does not confirm an applicable law. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.
A court dismissed a complaint against a tenant who installed a surveillance camera in a shared building, stating that the camera was not used to record others. The court found that the tenant's actions were reasonable due to a previous burglary. This case illustrates the complexities of privacy rights in shared living spaces.
What happened
The court dismissed a complaint about a surveillance camera installed by a tenant in a shared apartment building.
Who was affected
Other tenants in the apartment building who were concerned about their privacy.
What the authority found
The court ruled that the tenant's installation of the camera was justified due to security concerns and did not violate privacy rights.
Why this matters
This ruling highlights the challenges of balancing security needs with privacy rights in shared living environments. It serves as a reminder for tenants and property owners to communicate about security measures.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Linked-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 19 March 2026.
Processing notes: articles corrected, national law identified, authority corrected.
Retrieved text may be a secondary summary or an announcement. These automated statuses do not establish that the original decision was read or that the record received an independent legal review. How we check sources
The complainant was the beneficiary of a property on which there was an apartment building with numerous tenants. The alleged controller was the tenant of one of the flats and, in the course of installing a security door in the public corridor area of the property in question, had also had a functioning surveillance camera installed. According to the complainant, only the alleged controller had access to the recorded images and the possibility to use them, and this behaviour drastically interfered with the rights to respect for the private and family life of the other tenants, in particular to the confidentiality of the data concerned, as no one other than the alleged controller had access to this data and no one knew what happened to the images. The other tenants and the owner of the house had not given their consent, which was why the recordings were, in the applicant's opinion, inadmissible under section 12(4)(1) of the Data Protection Act. Therefore, she filed a complaint with the DPA, asserting a violation of the right to confidentiality. After an investigation, the authority dismissed the complaint on the grounds of violation of the right to secrecy and the right to deletion as unfounded and rejected the applications for uninstallation of the camera, for an order to refrain from future interventions and for the initiation of administrative penal proceedings. The authority found that there had been a burglary at the address mentioned, which was why the co-participant, in agreement with his son, had installed the video camera in question in 2010. The video camera was located on the first floor and was directed at the entrance to the flats XXXX and XXXX. The camera was non-functional and served as a deterrent against burglars. The other party had not used the video camera to take any pictures showing the complainant. In its assessment of the evidence, the DPA summarised that the statements of the co-participant were credible and that there was also no apparent r
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case W214 2230473-1 in AT
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
Ruling Date
25 September 2020
Authority
Datenschutzbehörde
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case W214 2230473-1 - Austria (2020). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: